Written on 25 June 2015.

   Visit a Moscow market, or courtyard, or construction site, and it’s easy to forget you are in Russia’s largest city, not Tajikistan or Uzbekistan. Central Asian languages resound all over the Russian capital. But while the crowds of migrant workers trouble some Muscovites, the recent proliferation of Central Asian eateries – numbering over 239, according to one listing – seems to suit most just fine.
 
   Amid these demographic and culinary changes, there has been one constant: plov. This hearty mix of rice, spices, carrots and meat has featured in Russian kitchens for generations. These days, the dish is generally identified as Uzbek, but that was not the case until official Soviet mythmakers made it so in the 1950s. After that, plov became the one Central Asian dish widely known in Russia; over the past two decades, it’s stayed put as a much broader array of the region’s cuisine has turned up, plied by everyone from kiosk food vendors to Russia’s most illustrious restaurateur.

                                                                                                                        (photo: wikipedia)

   “Every Russian family cooked borscht, plov and shashlik [grilled meat]. But nobody really understood or thought about how borscht is Russian, plov is Uzbek and shashlik is Georgian,” said Evgeny Dyomin, head chef at the historic Uzbekistan restaurant in Moscow.

 
   Many would counter that borscht is in fact Ukrainian, but that only emphasizes the adaptability and hard-to-pin-down roots of many popular dishes. The food historian and critic Anya von Bremzen says plov – known elsewhere as pilaf and pilau – may have originated in Persia, which had immense cultural influence in both Central Asia and the Caucasus. And plov’s appeal is largely explained by the simplicity and relative cheapness of its ingredients.
 

   “You could always find rice. I don’t remember any massive shortages of rice. You didn’t need a lot of meat, just a fistful to flavor. You could always find carrots,” said von Bremzen, author of "Mastering the Art of Soviet Cooking: A Memoir of Food and Longing."
 
   Plov’s popularity was cemented by the official Soviet culinary bible, “The Book of Tasty and Healthy Food.” However, the 1939 edition identifies plov as a dish from the Caucasus. The word “Uzbek” does not feature once in the book, which includes recipes for plov with lamb, with fish, with mushrooms, and with pumpkin and dried fruit. The volume notes that Azerbaijani cuisine includes 30 types of plov and offers a recipe for sweet plov from Guria, in western Georgia. In 1945, Stalin, a native Georgian, served quail plov to Churchill and Roosevelt at Yalta.
 
By the 1952 edition, a recipe for “Uzbek plov” comes just after “Georgian plov”—part of a “politicized” process in which the dish "became" Uzbek, according to Von Bremzen: “The whole Soviet policy of promoting cuisines from the [non-Russian] republics and creating this ethnic canon depended on which republic was more popular at that time” in Moscow, she told EurasiaNet.org.
 
   These days, one busy Central Asian restaurant chain, Choihona No. 1 (choihona is Uzbek for “tea house”), taps into people’s longing for the Soviet era—a major trend among Russia’s eateries and food manufacturers. Its name borrows a utilitarian theme from the Soviet period, when Grocery Store No. 34 might have stood across from Pharmacy No. 20. And plov features prominently on the menu.
 
   “It’s like some kind of nostalgia—because in Soviet times things were not all bad,” explained Timur Lansky, the founder of the chain, which has 40 restaurants in Moscow.
 
   Lansky, who got his start in Moscow’s nightclub scene in the infamously depraved early 1990s, calls Russians’ love of plov “genetic”: “For 300 years we were like one country: Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan—the Golden Horde.”
 
   But Choihona No. 1 has also helped make plov, which can be a time-intensive dish, convenient and cool. The chain has snug couches where diners can smoke hookahs until dawn. Its prazdnichny (“holiday”) plov is a tiny bit sweet and topped with juicy chunks of lamb. Attentive waiters keep the tea and cocktails flowing, delivery is available 24 hours a day, and prices fall within reach of Moscow’s teeming middle class.
 
   At the highest end of the market is the restaurant simply called Uzbekistan, opened by the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic’s Ministry of Commerce in 1951, just off Moscow’s downtown boulevard ring. Chef Zifa Saitbattalova, who has worked there since 1985, recalls lines around the block and people paying others to stand in line for them. “The restaurant had separate deliveries of food from Uzbekistan. Food that you couldn’t find in stores you could find here,” Saitbattalova said.
 
   Restaurant magnate Arkady Novikov now owns Uzbekistan. After a 1997 renovation, the upscale restaurant’s ornate interior looks like an orientalist’s fantasy come true. The mother-of-pearl-inlaid furniture hails from Damascus, the paneled doors from Morocco. At lunchtime, a hostess dressed like a belly dancer seats burly, besuited men in secluded nooks. The prices are steep: A portion of plov costs 860 rubles (currently about $14) as compared with 395 rubles at Chaihona No. 1. But the plov – served with fresh tomatoes and roasted garlic – ranks among the city’s best, as does the baklava.
 
   Even in the more affordable of Moscow’s many Central Asian eateries, the clientele seems largely Slavic. “I don't think the popularity of our cuisine was influenced by the torrent of migrants. They don’t influence locals. It is that our cuisine is cheap and healthy,” said Rushan Arslanov, manager of a popular Tajik restaurant, Khayam, which serves a memorable and reasonably priced shashlik lunch, and offers karaoke until 5:30 each morning.
 
     For a more family-friendly atmosphere, Brichmulla in eastern Moscow cooks its meat pastries in gas-fired clay ovens in an open kitchen. Waiters wearing long chapan robes, à la Hamid Karzai, scurry about serving some of the best shorpo lamb soup in town.
 
   That said, cafes in the bazaars on Moscow’s outskirts do cater mostly to Central Asian migrant workers. The menus are simpler and the food cheaper, but often just as good as the pricier, full-service restaurants.
 
   Ironically, much of the Central Asian food in Moscow tastes better than what one finds in the Fergana Valley, where the meat is often dry or gamey and the greasy rice can leave pools of cottonseed oil in the bottom of the bowl. Cafés often offer just one dish, like shorpo, which some travelers associate with a chunk of rancid fat in cloudy water. Excellent food is available, especially in private homes, but dining out can be disappointing.
 
   At Brichmulla, a Russian who was raised in Tashkent laughs after he bites into a steaming samsa: “You come to Moscow and the Uzbek food is better than it is in Uzbekistan.”

David Trilling -- Eurasianet.org

Written on 18 June 2015.

Current refugee-migrant flows (from Burma and Bangladesh toward Thailand and Malaysia and across the Mediterranean from Africa and the Middle East toward Europe) have highlighted the need to attack the root causes of such migration and refugee flows.  There is a need to move beyond the overly narrow definition of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees − “ a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality in his home country.”

   Migration and refugee flows are intrinsically of the same nature, only differing in the degree and intensity of the problems that drive them from their homes. These root causes can be summed up as being poverty with little hope of change, social tensions − some created for political reasons − and environmental degradation. These root causes created “the uprooted” with resulting alienation and suffering.  Some are uprooted and stay within their own country − now called “the internally displaced”.  When they cross State frontiers, they become migrants or refugees and thus a concern to neighboring States and the United Nations − in particular the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

   Ideally, there needs to be successful conflict resolution efforts in armed conflict zones such as Syria-Iraq and land reforms, greater emphasis on rural growth, improved access to credit for the poor, environmental protection and a pluralistic political order in Burma (Myanmar) and Bangladesh.  The same measures for ecologically-sound development and overcoming vulnerability should be taken in the African countries whose citizens join with those from the Middle East in trying to cross the Mediterranean.  Ideally also, there should be a channelling of greater efforts and resources directed towards meeting the basic needs of people in their home countries.

   Yet conflict resolution takes time.  There are few signs of an end to the armed conflicts in Syria-Iraq or to the establishment of a stable and just political order in Libya.  Transition to a democratic and pluralistic government in Myanmar, granting dignity and respect to all the “national minorities” is likely to ba a long process.  It is not clear that the military who have ben in control since 1960 will be very helpful.  Ecologically-sound development is also slow even when governments are relatively competent.

   Faced with the problem of the arrival of refugees and migrants, neighboring countries have often hardened their responses and created growing restrictive measures. There has been a growing emphasis on the punishment of traffickers who profit from the migration flows and to an extent encourage it. In Europe, we have seen the growth of anti-migration proposals by political parties, usually parties in opposition but at times as part of governing coalition governments.  Nationalist discourses are reinvented and reasserted. We have seen the tightening of immigration controls and the deportation of “illegal entrants”. Australia and Israel have followed the same practices.

   The consequences of these methods lead many refugees and migrants to live extremely grim, inhumane and uncertain lives, unable to find regular work and the children unable to go to State-run schools.

   Fortunately, there has been a response from non-governmental organizations (NGO) to the challenge of the increased number of refugees and migrants.  Often it has been a spontaneous effort of good will by persons who have met a refugee or migrant.  But such efforts by NGOs need greater support and coordination.  Action groups need to be able to act at the same time in more than one country. Transnational action by NGOs is needed, especially as governments within the European Union meet among themselves, often to adopt common restrictive policies.  The same is true of the Southasian States in ASEAN, some of whom have met these days in Thailand to discuss how to cope with the refugee flows.  Thus we face a double task: peace, reform, development in countries from which refugees and migrants leave and a coordinated policy of help, support, and integration in the countries receiving the refugees and migrants.  These are urgent tasks − vigorous and coordinated actions by NGOs are needed.

Rene Wadlow, President and a representative to the United Nations, Geneva, Association of World Citizens

Editor's Comment

   Rene Wadlow presents the case from an NGO point of view. He suggests that the distinction between refugees and migrants is an artificial one. In theory, the refugee has been pushed out of his or her country whereas the migrant has been pulled out by the promise of a better life abroad. In practice, the two categories cannot really be separated.

   The Syrian refugee arriving in Europe does not want to remain in Greece, Malta or Cyprus: he or she wants to proceed to, say, Sweden because of the promise of an easier acceptance and a better life. Hence, the Syrian refugee may have considered both a push and a pull factor when deciding to leave Syria. On the contrary, a Yemenite may not know any country bordering Yemen where he (not to speak of she) could hope for humane treatment and a minimal livelihood. If he decides to leave Yemen he would be acting on a push factor alone.

  In the case of economic migrants it is often not sure that they act on a pull factor only. Frequently, there will be other circumstances giving them a push, maybe even the decisive one. Discrimination of Roma in Balkan countries, of nomads in African countries, of religious and ethnic minorities anywhere: discrimination is not the kind of persecution in terms of lethal danger which would lift the migrant into the higher category of refugee.

   Discrimination or persecution? A difficult distinction to be made by immigration officials deciding on the fate of thousands now, perhaps millions in future. Also, there are other circumstances which could create a powerful push factor during the process of migration. Someone who has crossed the Sahara or the Sudan on the way to the Mediterranean may have had terrible experiences making a return trip unthinkable. Someone who sold a kidney in Khartoum to obtain the money for the trip to Italy: the Libyan coast is full of people who started out as economic migrants but are now in such a desperate situation that they would rather buy a place on the flimsiest boat of the least expensive smuggler than attempt to return. The pull factor has turned into a lethal push factor. But immigration officials won't recognize and accept that.

   There are also those migrants who destroyed their documents in order to pose as refugees. The government of Eritrea says many Eritrean refugees were in reality Ethiopian migrants.  Since the same tribes live on both sides of the border, the same languages are spoken and written, the oppressive government is using this fact as a convenient excuse. However, immigration officials are often challenged to determine the real nationality of an applicant for asylum; a lengthy and costly process. With rising numbers of illegal immigrants and a growing backlog in processing them, practices tend to become summary: Eritreans yes, Ethiopians no.  Who can't prove to be Eritrean could be considered Ethiopian.

   Like many observers, Wadlow recommends assistance to the countries of origin of economic migrants, the 'pull countries' as it were, to reduce the strength of the pull factor, and political action in 'push countries' to reduce or eliminate the push factors.  How difficult this approach is even within the European Union is exemplified by Bulgaria whose poverty persists and whose Slavic and Roma ethnic groups are clashing,  pushing out the minority.

   The pull factors are becoming stronger by the year. As television and internet are spreading in Africa and Asia, more villages, more people become aware of the image Europe's entertainment and commercial programs are presenting. People living in ample modern homes, driving luxury cars. traveling to distant places, enjoying sports and beach life, collecting art. How does this paradigm of life impact a boy in a thatched hut without running water and electricity in, say, the Ethiopian highlands, several hour's walk away from the nearest school?  A boy who does not know the operative end of a screwdriver because he has never turned a screw in his life but who saw some entertainment programs on the school's TV set?

   Even in developed countries such as Germany, the pull factors can be enormously strong. The East German state collapsed because the eastern population wanted the German Mark currency immediately after re-unification. The little money they had they splashed first on bananas and later on cars. They wanted the western standard of life as they imagined it, right away. Only later they discovered that this standard was far from perfect, deprived them of some conveniences, and hurt some of them badly.  So much for the Germans.

   But who is going to tell the boy in the thatched hut what the European paradise he imagines is really like?  If he knew what lies ahead for him before reaching Europe, and what afterwards, he might bury his dream. But no-one tells him. The pull factor rules supreme.

   Yet, there are some very modest, low scale initiatives undertaken. Donor-supported “community conversations” where people discuss the harsh realities of illegal travel, are effective at putting off potential migrants in Ethiopia, according to a spokesperson of the Prime Minster's Ofiice. This kind of effort is needed on a  global scale in Africa, Asia and Latin America, making use of modern media, and focusing on the hazards of both internal and international migration. 

Update

   The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) , a UK-based independent think tank urged European leaders to develop a broader understanding of what causes people to migrate.

   Its Why People Move report said: “The evidence reveals that the asylum-seekers and economic migrants often have similar reasons for choosing to make the dangerous journey to Europe and one person may fall into both of these categories at the same time. “One common and crucial motivation is their search for a secure livelihood. Measures that aim to allow asylum seekers in, while restricting the entry of economic migrants, overlook the reasons why a particular person migrates, and are likely to increase irregular migration still further as migrants seek alternative – and often more dangerous – ways to reach European countries.”

.

Written on 22 June 2015.

Die Grafschafter Nachrichten (30/4/15) berichteten über einen Vortrag des bekannten Vertreters der Postwachstumsökonomie, Professor Nico Paech, der auch Vorsitzender einer Vereinigung für Ökologische Ökonomie ist.  Paech erläuterte seine Vision von einer nachhaltigen Lebensweise und erklärte: "Die Wachstumsparty ist vorbei".

   Nicht fliegen, nicht Auto fahren. Kein Fernsehen, kein Handy. Paechs "Postwachstumsökonomie" soll große Teile der Industrien und 75 Prozent der deutschen Flughäfen stillegen, wie auch die Hälfte der Autobahnen. Wellness, Eier, Fleisch, Fisch, Restaurantbesuche, weitere Einfamilienhäuser sind no-nos. Wer weniger konsumiert, kommt auch mit 20 Arbeitsstunden pro Woche aus, laut Paech. Statt immer neue verschleißintensive Geräte zu produzieren, sollten Modelle für leichte Laienreparatur konstruiert und ihre Lebensdauer verlängert werden.

   Interessante Vorschläge. Die Welt, die Paech da skizziert kommt mir merkwürdig bekannt vor. Das hatten wir doch schon einmal, im Zweiten Weltkrieg und in den Jahren danach.

   Flugzeuge waren Ungeheuer, die Bomben abwarfen und mit Bordkanonen auf uns schossen. Autos? Der Arzt im Nachbardorf hatte einen Opel P4, das einzige private Auto weit und breit. Der Fürst hatte in seinen Maybach einen Holzvergaser einbauen lassen, der so schwer war, dass das Heck bei jeder Unebenheit am Boden kratzte.

   Wellness? Unbekannt. Eier, Butter, Zucker? Nur auf Marken und sonst unerschwinglich. Restaurants? Geschlossen. Zwanzig Arbeitsstunden? Im Gegenteil: volle Arbeitswoche und in der Freizeit hamstern gehen, wilde Salatkräuter, Pilze oder Waldobst sammeln, Kaputtes reparieren. Beim Schwarzhändler Wertvolles gegen Unentbehrliches eintauschen. Nachhaltigkeit? Oh ja, jeder Schuh, jedes Hemd, jedes Gerät wurde repariert, so lange es nur ging.

  Wegwerfen: nie! Keine Nahrungsmittel, keinen Lappen, keine Schraube je wegwerfen. Kunstgegenstände? Ach ja, Kinder sammelten die scharfkantigen Bombensplitter mit ihren bizarren Formen. Wären heute auf Ebay ein Vermögen wert. Heizung? Kochhexe oder Kachelofen, mit gerodetem Stubbenholz, Grude oder bestenfalls mit Braunkohlenbriketts befeuert. Vieles von dem, was Paech anstrebt, war noch vor relativ kurzer Zeit Alltag in der DDR.

   Sicherlich hat das deutsche Volk nie so wenig CO2 erzeugt, nie so wenig Ressourcen verbraucht, wie in diesen Jahren. Und war selten so schlank und gesund dank fleischarmer Diät und viel körperlicher Bewegung.

   Selbst wenn Deutschland Paechs Lebensstil annehmen würde, selbst wenn ganz Europa folgen würde — was bedeutet das, global gesehen? Eine bemerkenswerte, vielleicht sogar liebenswerte Selbstkasteiung, über die der große Rest der Welt den Kopf schüttelt. Vielleicht sollte Herr Paech über seinen Schatten springen und ein Flugticket rund um die Welt kaufen, damit er erfährt, wie klein Deutschland ist.

   Was nicht bedeutet, dass Paechs Vision falsch ist. In vielem hat er sicherlich recht. In anderem irrt er. Zum Beispiel in der Annahme, dass das Wegfallen der Produktion für überflüssigen Konsum die Arbeitszeit auf 20 Stunden reduzieren würde. Das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Paech ignoriert die Effizienz unserer auf Zeitersparnis zugeschnittenen Lebensweise.

  Filtert man als überflüssig all die Maschinen, Geräte, Kommunikationsmittel heraus, die uns täglich Zeit sparen, vom Zwiebelhacker bis zum Privatjet, dann wird die bloße Existenz (wieder) eine zeitraubende Beschäftigung. Milliarden Arbeitsstunden, die aus Mangel an zeitsparenden Möglichkeiten verloren gehen, reduzieren das Sozialprodukt und die Kaufkraft der Menschen auf Niveaus von vorvorgestern. Man stelle sich den CEO von Thyssen-Krupp statt im Businessjet an der Bushaltestelle (vergeblich?) wartend vor.

  Interessant wäre es, zu erfahren, wie sich Paech die medizinische Versorgung im Zeitalter der ressourcensparenden Armut vorstellt. Wird überflüssige Lebenserwartung gleich mit-eingespart? Hebammen statt Kaiserschnitt? Hörrohr statt Hörgerät, das ja Molybdän, Coltan und Neodym enthält?

   Es hat keinen Sinn, Paech der Zivilisationsmüdigkeit im Stile des alternden Horaz zu beschuldigen. Wir müssen vielmehr gründlicher überlegen, wie es weitergehen soll und wie es wohl — unseren Uberlegungen zum Trotz — weitergehen könnte.

  Seit rund einer Milliarde Jahren bevölkert homo sapiens die Erde und beutet sie aus. Die Säbelzahntiger Amerikas, die großen Beuteltiere Australiens, den Dodo von Mauritius und die mediterranen Wälder hat er vernichtet. Jetzt befreit er die Erdkruste von ihrem Erdöl- und Gasgehalt. Will man dem Ressourcenverschleiß Einhalt gebieten, so geht das nur durch konsequent durchgeführte internationale Gesetzgebung, die von allen Staaten akzeptiert wird. Nach dem Modell der Treibstoffbesteuerung müssten die Ressourcen weltweit so verteuert werden, dass sich ihre Verwendung nur unter eng definierten Bedingungen lohnt. Um das zu erreichen, braucht man das Äquivalent einer wirkungsvollen Weltregierung, sine qua non.

  Wir können also das laufende Jahrhundert, so nicht ein Wunder geschieht, vergessen. Die einzige Ressourcenbremse, die verbleibt, ist die Knappheit, der ordinäre Marktmechanismus, der sich nicht um die Paechs kümmert. Ditto die Industrie, die so lange geplant verschleißende Produkte herstellen wird, wie der Ersatz durch neue Geräte billiger und profitabler ist als Reparatur, egal, ob es sich um Schuhe, Computer oder Raketen handelt.

 Die Paechs können ihre Postwachstumsökonomien nur deshalb als ein attraktives Gegenmodell hinstellen, weil sie in einer ressourcenverschleissenden Wohlstandsgesellschaft leben, die ihnen Lebenswichtiges billig oder gratis liefert. Vom kanadischen Weizen über chinesische Fahrräder und gesetzliche Krankenversicherung bis zu Hartz IV liefern Lidl, Merkel und Co. den Paechs den Rahmen für ihre idyllischen Theorien. Ist der Weizen jedoch niedersächsisch, das Fahrrad aus Brandenburg, die Krankenkasse so pleite wie in Griechenland und Hartz IV auf Trinkgeldniveau zusammengestrichen, dann ist aus der Postwachstumsökonomie eine von der Wirklichkeit überholte Kuriosität der ökonomischen Dogmengeschichte geworden.

Heinrich von Loesch

Written on 14 June 2015.